Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
this big, grand compromise, the president and and congressional leaders need to negotiate to raise that limit. they're e manding 2 trillion in spending cuts be made to give the president the increase he wants and democrats demanding any deal to cut spending like that has to include an increase in tax revenue. the big question, going into tonight's meeting is whether a smaller deficit reduction n dea is possible. both sides are saying it can be done. failure to do it would lead to economic meltdown. >> jon, thank you very much. joining me to discuss the road ahead is the white house chief of staff bill daley. thank you very much for joining us. you've heard what jon said. you've seen what speaker boehner has done last night. what's your reaction to the deal being pulled right now? >> it's very unfortunate the speaker made the comments he has. the president is committtt to solving this deficit possible for the future of america. he's looking forward to the meeting to play out his case. he's saying, it is time now to make the tough decisions. in this town, generally they kick the can.
'r're not ready to vote f this, are you? >> from a big picture, i'm not ready to vote for this. let me tell you why -- excuse me, george, the bottom line here is, the people who got elected are not excited about being republicans or democrats, they are excited about results. and it is fair to say, we've achieved significant change in the way washington works by paying for the debt ceiling increase and not passing it on to the credit card. we've not achieved entitlement change, we've not reduced the size and scope of government. we're going in the wrong direction at a slower pace and for a lot of people that is not winning. >> you're an internationalist. we talked about all sorts of things like afghanistan. you saw the soldiers yesterday and i asked david plouffe, desperately asking their commander, admiral mullin, whether they will get paid. and he said i can't tell you. >> i can. i can tell them. here's what i would have said, not only are you going to get paid. admiral mullin said the number one national security issue facing this country is debt. and i wish we would have followed on with wha
, the argument has become a more big picture thing. the tea party arguing the country slipped its constitutional moorings in a wholesale way. >> i believe in the founding father's vision of a limited government. >> it's an argument that income taxes and federal reserve in government guarantee health care and government t tt keeps growing is not all that is intended by the framers of the constitution. the guys whose intellectual garb they honor at rallies, garnering in what they did. we need to go back, but who is to agree what that means? >> we need to reread the constitution and enforce the constitution. there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. >> actually that's not constitution, that's declaration of independence. >> drawing on promise and shrine in our constitution, the notion that we're all created equal. >> it's a very slippery slope to cherry picking your favorite golden oldie from the founding fathers and slapping it on political speeches. democrats quote from the founding father bus act like they were omnipotent. >> in paintings, they we
we can discuss. >> jill, as a historian. rick stengel brought up the idea of big government or small government. didn't the constitution give more power to a federal government, to a centralized government? >> it's suggested it's centralized and strengthened, especially in reference to the article of confederation, which states, 13 separate currencies. and each state can have its own navy. think about small government and big government it's hard to do that in the abstract. in the postal service in 1790 was six people. i think it's really easy to get kind of tangled up in intensity of our own modern political rhetoric. >> the framers of the constitution wanted to strengthen thehe federal government. they knew the government was, "a," necessary, and, "b," dangerous. in the act of creating a more competent government they sought to limit james madison, the architect of the papers, said, the powers delegated to the federal government by the proposed constitution are few and defined. that's either true or it's not. >> that is the continuing shift and balance that's been going on througho
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)